Saturday, October 18, 2008

George Soros's hit-squad yesterday launched an assault against Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, the one Ibero-American President who is insisting that legalized "personal consumption" of drugs must be reversed, because it is a cover for increasing drug mob activities. Soros's Human Rights Watch/Americas (HRW) held a press conference yesterday in New York City to release a new report alleging that Uribe is covering up links between his administration and the paramilitaries. BBC TV, naturally, played up the HRW report for all it is worth.Soros' attack on President Uribe occurs in the context of that Nazi-trained British asset's drive to destroy the legitimate governments of Ibero-America and empower the drug trade networks through legalized drug consumption policies. Soros founded the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, headed by former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, in April 2008, to lead that drive.The Commission held its second meeting in Bogota, Colombia on Sept. 4-5, closeting itself behind closed-doors with Soros's personal drug lobby strategist, Ethan Nadelmann. Within weeks, governments fell in line. On Oct. 1 Mexican President Felipe Calderon sent legislation to Congress, to legalize "personal doses" of every narcotic known, including cocaine, heroin and the synthetic killers. On Oct. 13, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya joined the crowd, telling a regional meeting of top anti-narcotics officials, that consumption of "chemical, synthetic and natural" drugs should be legalized, and abusers "educated" on lowering their use. If Argentina's Justice Minister has his way, Argentina will follow suit quickly.Colombia's Uribe, however, refuses to buckle on this one, pointing out loudly, at home and internationally, that the legalization of "personal doses"--the sophist fraud championed by Soros--has increased drug consumption and provided impunity for the traffickers

About Me

Checkhov on the relationship bet. the 'student' and the state :
"..the outcry for lack of coverage in the papers indicate that public sentiment is on the side of the students. It's impossibile to pass judgment when not all facts are covered. The state forbids you to write, it forbids the truth. This is arbitrary rule yet the papers still write about rights and prerogatives of the state in connection to this same rule. The mind simply cant make sense of all this. If it aggresses against us, shouldn't we protest ?
The concept of state ought to be founded on precise legal rights.
If it is not, the state is only a bogeyman, a hollow noise producing imaginary fright"